I know during the last lockout they waited until February until they scrapped the season. What do you estimate is the cut off date to reach an agreement to get a season in?

It depends on what the league considers its bare-bones minimum for a season. If it's 38 games like I suspect it may have been in '05 (four division games, home and home against other conference teams) then it'll be early-mid February again. If it's 48 games like in '95 then it'll mid-January, just like that was.

Either way I'm not expecting any real progress until early January, or if the players file a 'disclaimer of interest' as they did in the NBA and somehow that gets the process going the way it did there (I've come to expect the worst about anything with this lockout though). Probably a drop-dead date will be floated after the BOG meeting next week.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 29 November 2012 - 05:43 PM.

0

"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

If the NHLPA uses the disclaimer of interest, there may be a breakthrough. I don't understand why the owners haven't given anything more than they have - it just doesn't make sense to me. They are risking a lot over a little.

The owners are letting Bettman (who has Phoenix's vote), Jacobs and friends drive the bus, for the most part...they really don't have much of a choice since Bettman's a hard-liner himself. All they need is six other owners to vote against a CBA to block it indefinitely.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 29 November 2012 - 06:32 PM.

0

"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

If the NHLPA uses the disclaimer of interest, there may be a breakthrough. I don't understand why the owners haven't given anything more than they have - it just doesn't make sense to me. They are risking a lot over a little.

I think Bettman might be negotiating for his job. I have nothing to back this up besides wild speculation but it would explain a lot. I think he might need to break the NHLPA this CBA fight to remain commissioner

I think Bettman might be negotiating for his job. I have nothing to back this up besides wild speculation but it would explain a lot. I think he might need to break the NHLPA this CBA fight to remain commissioner

I hope so, at least it would provide something good out of a lost season...but you do keep reading that Bettman promised the owners a big win, so if he doesn't deliver there'll be hell to pay finally.

0

"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

I think Bettman might be negotiating for his job. I have nothing to back this up besides wild speculation but it would explain a lot. I think he might need to break the NHLPA this CBA fight to remain commissioner

They've continually raised his pay. I mean, the owners as a group have done some dumb things, but saying 'Hey, control this group of people you have no control over or else' is completely senseless.

Remember - the CBA that the owners think is so bad now? That's what they got after supposedly breaking the union the first time. How much more can they really get?

Remember - the CBA that the owners think is so bad now? That's what they got after supposedly breaking the union the first time. How much more can they really get?

Doesn't that strengthen the case for wanting to fire Bettman? Especially if you're a small market owner. He broke the union last time and promised a system that could give you cost certainty and provide stable profits. However instead it's created a system where the top 5-8 teams in the league enjoy all the spoils of the NHL's massive revenue explosion. If I were a bottom half owner I'd be annoyed, assuming the bottom half of the league legimately struggles to break even. The NHLPA has access to their revenue numbers and seems to believe they do from their revenue sharing propositions.

Doesn't that strengthen the case for wanting to fire Bettman? Especially if you're a small market owner. He broke the union last time and promised a system that could give you cost certainty and provide stable profits. However instead it's created a system where the top 5-8 teams in the league enjoy all the spoils of the NHL's massive revenue explosion. If I were a bottom half owner I'd be annoyed, assuming the bottom half of the league legimately struggles to break even. The NHLPA has access to their revenue numbers and seems to believe they do from their revenue sharing propositions.

I don't know it's just speculation.

If you're a small market owner, this is your first lockout. Here's the teams that have changed owners since the last lockout:

NashvilleTampa BayFloridaPhoenix (lol)St. LouisDallasAnaheimAtlanta (which became a mid-market in Winnipeg)

So the small market teams that haven't changed hands are Carolina, Long Island, Columbus, and arguably Colorado. Karmanos was heavily involved during the last lockout, for some reason he's taken a back seat here. His team made a splash this off-season, I imagine he wants to get the season underway as soon as possible. Long Island's getting a bone thrown to it - revenue sharing is going to be open to all teams now. I don't think Colorado or Columbus's owners are particularly active.

I understand you are speculating, but I don't see any reason why the owners would be unhappy with Bettman. They went behind his back in 95 and paid the price for it. They followed him in 2005 and most of them have seen enormous gains in profit. They just want more than that.

Meh, if they cancel this season, you can put me in the "good riddance NHL" group. I'll find other hockey to watch.

Because if they lose this season, it's proven they really haven't learned anything from the last lockout, and that they'll probably lock out again when this current CBA expires. I don't need this added frustration, anger, angst, and disappointment in my life every 5 years.

Why does the NHLPA really stick with this 5 year deal thing? Can't they see they lose more each time and a longer contract would be BENEFICIAL to them? Jeez.

The union is probably betting on the notion that Bettman will still be commissioner in 5 years and that there'll be a ton of pressure on the league to not lock the players out. Alternately they are pressing on this point because they are willing to trade it for something else.

The union is probably betting on the notion that Bettman will still be commissioner in 5 years and that there'll be a ton of pressure on the league to not lock the players out. Alternately they are pressing on this point because they are willing to trade it for something else.

Actually, five years from now would be the 100th anniversary season of the NHL, that's probably the real reason they've been pushing five years...betting the league won't want to push a lockout THAT year.

0

"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

Meh, if they cancel this season, you can put me in the "good riddance NHL" group. I'll find other hockey to watch.

Because if they lose this season, it's proven they really haven't learned anything from the last lockout, and that they'll probably lock out again when this current CBA expires. I don't need this added frustration, anger, angst, and disappointment in my life every 5 years.

. If they lose this season, they'll learn their lesson the hard way because people will go away for good- even some hardcore fans. Then we'll see if they think twice about doing this again in 7 years. If hockey fans display the same type of discontent baseball fans did after the strike, it should hopefully be enough to wake these fvcktards up that you can't cancel 2 seasons in 8 years and get away with it.

. If they lose this season, they'll learn their lesson the hard way because people will go away for good- even some hardcore fans. Then we'll see if they think twice about doing this again in 7 years. If hockey fans display the same type of discontent baseball fans did after the strike, it should hopefully be enough to wake these fvcktards up that you can't cancel 2 seasons in 8 years and get away with it.

Wasn't that Donald Fehr who led the Players union through the strike? Now I know this is a lockout, and not strike, but Donald Fehr is no angel in these proceedings. I see a lot of Bettman hate on here, but I have to believe, as Triumph said, overall the owners are happy with their unprecedented revenue growth. While I am not really in either sides camp, I believe that Donald Fehr is a very big reason why this thing drags on the way it does. He is playing hard ball, and keeping his troops in line along the way, but there does not appear to be a real strategy for a true settlement in place. His jotting down notes on a napkin as "an offer" should have been seen as a red flag by the players. The fact that the Players first fully written offer was just a few weeks ago seems almost disinterested to me.

Either way both sides have lost big time here. I believe that in the end the owners will ultimately recoup these losses over many years. The players on the other hand will never recoup the lost time, and salary during their small window of oppurtunity, they call a career. This whole thing is just sucjh a shame...

0

"It wasn't Mike Eruzione shouting his own name that finally convinced coach Brooks to stop making the players do sprints. It was Mark Johnson, who smashed his stick against the glass in a fit of rage."Movie Mistakes and Bloopers

Wasn't that Donald Fehr who led the Players union through the strike? Now I know this is a lockout, and not strike, but Donald Fehr is no angel in these proceedings. I see a lot of Bettman hate on here, but I have to believe, as Triumph said, overall the owners are happy with their unprecedented revenue growth. While I am not really in either sides camp, I believe that Donald Fehr is a very big reason why this thing drags on the way it does. He is playing hard ball, and keeping his troops in line along the way, but there does not appear to be a real strategy for a true settlement in place. His jotting down notes on a napkin as "an offer" should have been seen as a red flag by the players. The fact that the Players first fully written offer was just a few weeks ago seems almost disinterested to me.

The players hired Fehr for this. They hired Fehr as a sign that they weren't going to let what happened to them last time happen to them this time. Goodenow was not Goodenow - not only did he lead them through a season-long lockout, it was clear that only a small group of players were loyal to him and there was not much communication with the rest of the union.

Fehr is not tipping his hand because, as I've mentioned earlier, anything the players don't concede is ignored by the NHL, and anything the NHLPA concedes is used in all future NHL offers. This was how the league operated during the last lockout - Goodenow offered a 24% rollback when, as I recall, the NHL's offered rollback was less substantial. But the NHL said 'yoink!' and when the season started in 2005-06, the players were making 24% less.

I am surprised there is not a deal yet, but that's because I would've figured the NHL would have made a move towards the players by now. Maybe after the December 5th Board of Governors meeting there'll be something.

Either way both sides have lost big time here. I believe that in the end the owners will ultimately recoup these losses over many years. The players on the other hand will never recoup the lost time, and salary during their small window of oppurtunity, they call a career. This whole thing is just sucjh a shame...

It isn't about money anymore. If the NHL split the difference in the money gap between the two sides (which is not wide) and agreed to some of the things the NHLPA wants with contracts there would be a deal. The NHL has not conceded anything significant to the NHLPA besides moving on Make Whole, which shouldn't even be a question.

Fehr is not tipping his hand because, as I've mentioned earlier, anything the players don't concede is ignored by the NHL, and anything the NHLPA concedes is used in all future NHL offers. This was how the league operated during the last lockout - Goodenow offered a 24% rollback when, as I recall, the NHL's offered rollback was less substantial. But the NHL said 'yoink!' and when the season started in 2005-06, the players were making 24% less.

But you can't make a deal unless you make some concessions. The mark of a good negotiator is how he goes about this. Obviously you don't just admit, "Yeah, I'm willing to concede Y to try and get a deal done." Most good negotiators will offer Y in exchange for some big, unlikely-to-be-accepted concessions from the other side and issue an ultimatum that the deal be taken as is and/or by a very short deadline, after which Y will be taken back off of the table. Of course everybody knows thereafter that Y can be a part of a final deal, but it has been firmly demonstrated that the other side doesn't get Y easily.

If you're saying that it's in the PA's best interests to make the NHL move first, well yeah. It's always better in a negotiation to be the side that's holding to what it wants and not be the side that's moving towards the other's demands. But that doesn't have much to do with reaching an agreement. Making the deal is simply about feeling like you are better off making it than not making it (obvious statement is obvious). I think that we've already passed the point where one side should be thinking, "Sure, the deal we could make right now is acceptable, but if we hold out longer we can really screw the other side!" Each side, I think, has shown that it is not willing to just be demolished in this negotiation, so if we're not moving on, then at least one side must be feeling that the doable deal right now really is worse than continuing to cancel this season's games. So then the question is why does that side feel that way.

Or do you disagree? You think that League still believes it can tighten the screws on the players to get more out of them than in an acceptable deal that's available right now?